we all know the images will be saved, they have to be. After all, what kind of security outfit would not want the capability to go back and look at the images after a future terror attempt happens? Of course they'll want to go back and review surveillance footage and these images, to see if they need to change thresholds or procedures, to see if/what they missed.

So given that it's a given they are saving them for forensics purposes (and perhaps for evidenciary purposes if a terrorist was brough to trial), isn't this the outright manufacture of child porn?

I'm more concerned with the reports of "enhanced patdowns" used on underage children. Having an image like that on some government computer is nasty, but unlikely to cause any lasting harm to the kid as long as it never leaks out into the wild (which is a real possibility, I'll grant).

However, what does it tell the child when a government employee is allowed to touch them in areas their parents have been telling them all their lives no one but the doctor is allowed to touch them? While the parents stand by powerless to do anything about it? In full view of hundreds of other people? Are we supposed to amend what we tell our children to "no one can touch you there, unless they happen to have some kind of perceived authority over you or if they're wearing a uniform"?

The "think of the children" defense is perfectly applicable here. It is not just a superfluous use of children's issues to misdirect people from the real issue; here, patting-down children causes real harm, and draws people's attention to the primary issue itself. I agree that the groping of adults should be enough to stop this behavior on the part of the TSA, but the role that children play in this situation is different and compelling. As the GP pointed out, not only are these pat-downs useless when used on children, but they also monstrously undermine healthy efforts to teach children to protect their own bodies. The practice on adults is offensive and useless; on children it is perverse, reprehensible, and cruel.

Moreover, be practical: The hardest part of fixing this problem is getting the attention of beauracrats, which means getting the attention of the public and media for long enough for those beauracrats "care". Highlighting that children are being needlessly affected here, and that the TSA is removing children from their parents' control, are real problems that get the attention needed to fix the problem.

You said the same things I wanted to say, but better. For once, the "Think of the children" mantra is actually reasonable here, and it might actually help to snap people out of their complacency and make them realize how degrading this latest security theatre is. It's one thing to meekly give up all of our privacy and liberty just because the government asks us to, but even BEYOND that, they are now trying to take away our basic dignity. People need to draw the line somewhere and make the TSA realize, enough is enough.

Imagine you have a teenage daughter. Would you rather: (1) have her be irradiated by a medically-unproven scanning device which will show images of her naked body to the sleazy TSA guys behind the counter, any one of whom might capture that image with his cell phone to wank off to later, or: (2) have her be physically molested by a same-sex TSA employee who will touch her breasts and crotch, in public view in front of other passengers, or (3) have her be physically molested by a same-sex TSA employee who will touch her breasts and crotch, in a private room out of sight?

All three of these are grossly invasive and unacceptable options. Of course they're grossly invasive and unacceptable for adults too, but it might be easier to make people realize this if they happen to be a parent and you can explain it to them in terms of what is going to happen to their child. After thinking this through, I think any decent parent would be quite angry at the TSA.

In this case, the "think of the children" defense is actually relevant - an adult can legally consent to another adult touching his or her genitals, but a child can't. (Which is not to say that adults should consent to the TSA's groping.)

And why shouldn't she have pasted it on facebook? In my parent's photo album there are heaps of photos showing me as a child naked in the bath. They've shown these photos to heaps of people. Not on facebook, but facebook didn't exist back then. Are they child pornography? Of course they're not fucking pornography. They are photos of me as a child in a bubble bath with my brother taken by a parent who loves us both. I was never molested or treated badly. If you choose to view innocent photos in a sexual manner than that is your fucking problem. There is and was nothing sexual in these photos of me and surely to be considered "pornography" there has to be some sexual intent. The fact that you consider that putting them on facebook immediately makes the photos pornographic in nature just says to me that you're as stupid, ignorant and downright idiotic as the rest of the people who think it's pornographic. Fuck you. Thanks.

Tell that to the parents that have been arrested because their three year old kid ran into the camera frame while running around naked on a camping trip. Or bath-time photos, etc. You know, all of that stuff that nobody would have thought twice about a decade ago. It can now very easily completely destroy your life, even if you're found not guilty (hell, even if charges are never pressed).

I also believe that airport security has been completely unreasonable for at least the past few years. What's currently

You are being obtuse. Intent is 90% of the law. There is a clear and obvious difference between a security guard seeing an x-ray of someone naked while searching for weapons, and a person taking nude pictures for fun or profit. The law instructs judges to consider what a "reasonable person" would think of a situation.

You're being well, naive, I'm afraid. Yes, if the relevant laws and the Justice System were fully functional and rational regarding child pornography, you might well be correct. But they're not, you know that, in fact they've gone completely 'round the bend, friend. And let me ask you this: what's going to happen when a few hundred thousand of those images show up as torrents? You know it's going to happen: 90% of Slashdot will download them immediately, just to see what the fuss is all about. However, the

"They are not at all clear representations with easy to identify anatomy. They are strange ghostly pictures that are recognizable as a human form but little else"

This is false. For the one doctored image there are hundreds of real images you can view and the only thing indistinct about them is color.

"First is because it is not sexual in nature."

That literally varies from one examiner to the next. Unless you are going to claim that $10/hr barely trained employees with no significant qualifications maintain a perfect professional disassociation from the innate instincts in every human. Even doctors only pretend this and some of them poorly.

It all started on 9/11, when instead of reacting to the attacks as a matter for coordinated worldwide policing, we elevated those fuckers to the same status as a nation-state and decided to declare war on anyone and everyone who didn't instantly get in line behind us. We stoked our own fear to an insane degree, and it's already boomeranged back on us in so many ways. This is just one more self-inflicted wound in a long line of idiotic mistakes we've made over the last nine years.

Terrorism was a police matter when it was Timothy McVeigh blowing up a federal building. The police investigated, tracked him down, and a jury of his peers convicted him. At no point did we put up checkpoints near buildings and grope anyone who wanted to get in. At no point did we have the government pull over and search every vehicle large enough to carry a fertilizer bomb.

Terrorism is a criminal act and it should be treated as such. When we elevate it to an act of war we not only give the perpetrators far more legitimacy than they deserve, we also fight it with the worst possible tools for the job.

So, THE only way to prevent terrorism is to have a police state. Search everyone - every where. Meaning, we need to search the vagina and rectum of every little girl because you never know when someone sticks explosive in there. We also need full x-rays to see right through the body because you never know when someone will surgically implant explosives.

Get it?

It is impossible to be safe from terrorism.and people really need to get over the idea that it's possible to be completely safe.

In the meantime, I'm sure you don't hesitate to jump in your car and get on the freeway because that's probably how your going to die and if yo live long enough, it'll be cancer or heart disease.

The primary value of catching the "perpetrators" is deterrence for others.

The primary value is stopping further activity by the perpetrators. The secondary value is deterring others. By treating this as a war, we have not only failed to take out the perpetrators (remember that guy, what's his name.. oh yes, I remember now: Osama bin Laden), we have recruited many thousands of fighters for al-Qaeda and related groups. When you engage in police activity, you target the perpetrator. When you invade two count

Terrorism is not a police matter. That's the mistake that people have been making for years.

Of course it is a police matter. Murder was committed, and must be investigated by the police. When Timothy McVeigh bombed the federal building in Oklahoma, it was a police matter and was handled professionally.

In 2002 and 2005, when some people used bombs to murder tourists in Kuta Beach (on Bali Island, Indonesia), the Indonesian police tracked down the perpetrators and brought them to justice. Indonesians didn't turn their country into a police state. They just brought murderers to justice. But then, Indonesia has intelligent police who use human intelligence, rather than quoting and following a textbook, to perform police work and interrogate prisoners.

Calling murderers "terrorists" doesn't change that fact that murder, a criminal act, was committed. An act of war is between two nation-states, not a band of angry nutters and a nation-state. Otherwise, we would be able to send the US Army against the Montana Militia.

Of course, if you want to argue that we should go after countries that give material support to murderous organizations, then we should have gone to war with Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Pakistan.

You can't "police" terrorism, and we didn't declare war on everyone who disagreed with us. I get the point you're trying to make, but talk about hyperbole.

You can make law enforcement and the rule of law your primary means of fighting terrorism, rather than leading with the military and supporting that with extra-legal activity. The two are vastly different approaches.

I take your point about hyperbole. We obviously didn't declare war on everyone who disagreed with us. But we also needlessly turned plenty

As the Americans learned so painfully in Earth's final century, free flow of information is the only safeguard against tyranny. The once-chained people whose leaders at last lose their grip on information flow will soon burst with freedom and vitality, but the free nation gradually constricting its grip on public discourse has begun its rapid slide into despotism. Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart he dreams himself your master.

Why is that a country founded on the ideological rejection of tyranny is creeping ever closer to the text book example of abuses of power?

Why? That's an easy question to answer: because we're human. They're the classic reasons: greed, power, money, etc. There are a lot of people getting paid for the TSA to be so big, and a lot of people in a lot of positions of power. Because people are people, corruption comes out of that.

The question isn't "why", because the answer is always the same. The question should be "is anyone doing anything about it?" Thankfully, it appears that finally this major issue is receiving the type of response that it should. This is obviously a breach of fourth amendment rights, and the Israelis have proven that it's possible to have a higher level of security with a minimal level of interference, without simply outright violating people's rights in the name of security. Everyone needs to continue pressure to figure out a way to make air travel secure while not violating everyone's rights, because it's obviously possible and just not happening.

It seems to me like "grope them" is the reaction you get when you can't think of anything better, so there might be some problems with the people making these policies.

The fact that people are at least starting to stand up against those policies and for their rights is the right reaction and it's reassuring to see it finally happening. That's what makes this country strong: not the fact that we can stop everything from happening, but the fact that we change it if it does.

Because personal responsibility has been thrown out the window by a cabal of power-hungry politicians who use government to make citizens dependent on them. They want everything to be like Western Europe, with tons of regulation and a gigantic state that can force everyone to behave the way they want them to behave.

But don't worry. The anti-government wave of the 2010 midterms woke some people up. The GOP finally adopted a secular, economy-focused message and was very successful with it, and if that means t

But don't worry. The anti-government wave of the 2010 midterms woke some people up. The GOP finally adopted a secular, economy-focused message and was very successful with it, and if that means this country shifts back toward libertarianism (you know, how it originally started), that's fine with me.

Thanks! I needed a good laugh. What you wrote is just as delusional as Obama's "Hope & Change". We are getting screwed by both sides and the Tea Party is too stupid to realize they are being used by those who want to keep the status quo.

It's been a while since the 9/11 attacks, and maybe later updated information was hidden back in the classified ads of my newspaper - but I thought that the consensus was the 9/11 hijackers did not bring their boxcutters onto the plane with them. So these increasingly intrusive TSA make-work tactics would have had zero effect on the worst terrorist attack in US history.

Not to mention that, post 9/11, passengers and crew realize now that modern-day hijackers are mainly interested in killing everyone on the plane. So in the attempts that have followed, passengers and/or the crew have successfully thwarted those attempts. That's the real solution - an aware public.

These silly "solutions" the TSA keeps rolling out don't seem to be accomplishing anything other than annoying air travelers. If any of these measures had actually demonstrably stopped even one attempted attack, don't you think the TSA would be crowing it from the rooftops?

John Pistole (head of TSA) tipped his hand when bragging about the effectiveness of the screening.

His brag is that he has thwarted terrorists, by siezing terror tools such as marijuana and a heroin needle.

Now, marijuana and a heroin needle will not bring down a plane, so what's really happening here?

A DEA agent, or police officer, cant run around shoving his hand down everyones pants looking for drugs. Without cause, that would be an illegal search, and the evidence obtained would be useful.

However, when the illegal search is made privately (I shove my hand down a strangers pants, then call the cops when i find a baggie of weed), the evidence is admissable. I may be charged with assault or something, but the point is the DEA has now made an end run around the 4rth amendment.

That is what this is. The TSA are *not* police, the search is obstensibly for security purposes, but when they find that baggie of weed, it's turned over to the cops and DEA who do their whole civil forfeiture routine.

You might remember a scheme to have postal employees 'on the lookout for terror' right after 9/11. Same thing there. The dumb old constitution limits police power, and they fucking hate it.

The country is bankrupt. They need to sieze more houses, cars, and boats. This is just a loophole through the constitution, and a brand new (illegal) battlefield for the War on Drugs, which is much more profitable than the War on Terror. More people die in a day crossing the road than have ever died of terrorism in the USA. They know there's no real threat.

So, once this is accepted, the TSA will move the road show to train and subway stations, and then start random roadside searches of cars. Look to see more bullshit agencies created by executive order, to illegally search - i mean safety screen - you in other venues as well. After all, a Phish concert certainly is a decent terrorist target, right? We want all those people to be safe, after all.

IANAL, and perhaps a real one could clarify what I'm saying, or tell me why I'm wrong.

Look to see more bullshit agencies created by executive order, to illegally search - i mean safety screen - you in other venues as well. After all, a Phish concert certainly is a decent terrorist target, right?

It's already happening. Recently a Grateful Dead cover band had their property [campzoe.com] seized because they failed to provide enough security. I've been there several times and it was, without a doubt, the safest concert environment I have ever been to. There were no friskings because there was no need for it.

Actually as the fourth 9/11 plane demonstrates, once the passengers know what the score is they are not going to worry about box cutters. Remember that prior to 9/11 passengers where instructed to play it safe if planes where hijacked. That WAS the safe thing to do until 9/11. After 9/11 it is NOT the safe thing to do and passengers no longer do so.

Locked cockpit doors and passengers willing to go to the mat are the ONLY two safety measures that increase your safety when flying. The rest is security theater.

"in the attempts that have followed the passengers and/or crew have thwarted attempts"

Exactly. Arm everyone. In Vermont we can carry hidden weapons. We don't need no stinking government permits. You never know if the person you're confronted is carrying a hidden handgun and will whip it out to shoot you. That knowledge makes you a whole LOT more respectful and it means that we have the weapons to take on a terrorists, bank robber, home intruder, etc.

Arm everyone. In Vermont we can carry hidden weapons. We don't need no stinking government permits. You never know if the person you're confronted is carrying a hidden handgun and will whip it out to shoot you. That knowledge makes you a whole LOT more respectful and it means that we have the weapons to take on a terrorists, bank robber, home intruder, etc.

Excellent point, good chap. The sheer number of concealed weapons has surely made America one of the most respectful places in the world today!

I've heard that old saw so many times before, and it still makes me puke when I hear it. One of the classic examples of an unarmed society with a much lower crime rate is Japan. I *lived* in Japan, for seven years (unlike a lot of the people who parrot that example), and I will guarantee that the lower crime rate in Japan has much, much less to do with whether or not the average citizen is allowed to own a gun, and much, much more to do with culture. The Japanese *do not tolerate* those who break with tradition or societal rules. We Americans practically worship the rebels. The Japanese also don't muck around with criminals. When a suspect is arrested, they are guilty unless proven innocent, and once incarcerated, it's not a trip to the country club (albeit with Bubba in the shower and iron bars in the windows) -- it's sit on your knees on a concrete cell until you are allowed to move, then back on your knees again.

If you really want to know how disarming the population affects crime rates, compare the crime rates before and after in a single location before and after gun laws are changed, or compare crime rates in cities in, for example, right-to-carry and no concealed-carry states. For example, there is a very interesting graph of the crime rate in Florida before and after it passed a right-to-carry law in 1987 at http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp [justfacts.com] . In other words, I see your "...concealed weapons has surely made America one of the most respectful places in the world..." and raise you a "Indeed, and the handgun bans in Washington D.C., Chicago and NYC have certainly made them safe places to live!"

Actually, yes. But I'm not really sure that matters. I would never be so presumptuous as to assert that having Asian relatives makes me an expert on all things Asia.

I do have asian relatives who grew up in their native countries before moving to the US, so I'm aware of how they're expected to act

Define "Asian" in this context. Do you realize that there is an enormous amount of cultural diversity between different countries in Asia? And within a given country as well? If a person in Japan had a *Mexican* relative, would that qualify him as an expert on *American* culture?

and yes, it IS like a robot - someone who unthinkingly does what they're told by their boss / parent / spouse and "brings shame" if they dare to do what they want instead of what they're told.

So you are making generalizations about all of Asia based on the few relatives that you know? This is a type of logical fallacy known as a Hasty Generalization [nizkor.org]. My personal experiences living in Japan directly contradict your claim that Asian people are like robots. I met hundreds of people who I would describe as rebellious, who were doing what they wanted rather than what they were told. Many were way more rebellious than I was growing up in America. So I would say that our personal anecdotes would cancel each other out.

I would question whether you even understand your relatives as well as you think you do. Your "brings shame" quote sounds like something out of "The Last Samurai" rather than anything that anyobody would *actually* say. Is it possible that you are just projecting a popular stereotype of Asian culture onto your relatives instead of actually getting to know them? If you said to your Asian cousins, "Asians are like robots", what do you think they would say in response? Would they beep affirmatively and walk away? Or might they actually exercise some free will and disagree with you?

And I've got news for you - Americans do what their bosses, parents, and spouses tell them to do all the time. How is it that when Americans follow orders it is "thinkingly" but when Asians do it, it is "unthinkingly"?

If we all followed traditions, women would be stuck in the kitchen or relegated to only jobs like being a teacher, nurse, or secretary. Blindly following tradition is the exact opposite of thinking freely. A free thinker says "why" and rejects the notion of tradition for the sake of tradition. You don't understand this though and think that it's somehow possible to combine "no free will" with "free thinking".

You are putting the word *blindly* in my mouth, and then attacking me for saying that we should *blindly* follow rules and traditions. This is an example of the Straw Man [nizkor.org] logical fallacy. In reality, I agree with you that we should challenge laws and traditions that are harmful to society. For example, I would support challenging the TSA's new laws requiring passengers to either pass through a backscatter x-ray machine or be pat down before boarding a flight - on the grounds that the law does more harm than good.

I merely said that sometimes we might choose to *follow* a rule or tradition, without in any way sacrificing our ability to *think* freely.

You cannot tolerate the notion that someone might choose differently than you do and thus try to insult them and call them moron's simply because they don't bow to your infinite wisdom.

You just said that Asians are like robots, and your are calling me intolerant?

I welcome opposing opinions - as long as they have some basis in logical thought. Your arguments do not. If you are going to respond to me again, please try to do so without committing any more

I would feel safer if we got rid of the TSA and just had one or two fully decked out marines on board each flight. Would be cheaper too...

Even that would be a complete waste of money. After 9/11 passengers know that if the plane gets hijacked they will likely die. The passengers and crew will now prevent a hijacking just as a Marine would. The other easy to imagine threat is that someone tries to blow up the plane. In that case a Marine isn't going to be much help. We would be better off devoting the money to intelligence and investigation.

The passengers and crew will now prevent a hijacking just as a Marine would.

The marine could carry weaponry onto the plane, the civilians can't. We'll get a nice police state once we all start asking for it. Military police roaming around our civilian lives sure is better than the gropings, right?

Air marshals carry specially designed firearms that are less likely to cause explosive decompression.

This is a myth. The air marshals carry [hendonpub.com] Sig Sauers chambered in.357 SIG that fire conventional jacketed hollow point bullets. They experimented with glaser safety slugs in the 70s and 80s but found they lacked sufficient stopping power to be effective against determined adversaries.

Suggesting that passengers would stand up against plane hijackers is absurd. The American public at-large already crapped it's pants and bent over for the federal government when ordered to do so. Why would those same people not cower in fear when confronted directly with any other threat?

Of course American's are terrorized cowards. They will do anything to have someone tell them that it's going to be alright, that their investments are safe, that their house is worth more than it is, that social security will be around when they retire, and that the plane will land safely if they just do as they are told.

Want a direct example? Just look at these bus passengers do nothing as an old man is assaulted by some bully:

yeah, a scared untrained mob vs 4 trained individuals in a small space. Not going t stop a take over of the aircraft.

Wanna bet? Flight 93, the shoe bomber and the underwear bomber prove otherwise. Yeah, Flight 93 crashed, but the hijackers already had control of the aircraft when the passengers found out what was going down. There are other examples of passengers taking out suicidal hijackers, but most Americans have never heard the stories because they happened elsewhere (I remember reading about a group of passengers who took out a suicidal hijacker in Africa in the mid 90s, but it wasn't CNN that brought the story to me).

Secure flight deck doors...

Yes, and we already have that.

...and a auto pilot code that can't be turned off is the real way to go. It would make any attempt useless.

You do realize that the certification requirements for an autopilot state that the pilot *has* to be able to override it, because from time to time, they do fail, right? I will refuse to get on board -- or allow my family to get on board -- any airplane that has an autopilot that the pilot can't shut off, because the odds of a runaway autopilot are far greater than the odds of a terrorist hijacking.

Mid flight explosion? get rid of the scanner and get a few dogs. Hell, just one dog people have to walk past on their way down the gang plank.

Yeah, I agree with you there. My dumbest dog is a lot smarter and a whole lot more trustworthy than those goons at TSA -- especially the ones dictating policy.

A few weeks ago, I flew out of Lihue, Kauai. They have one 'scanner'. I guess thats what it is. A fancier version of booth then the usual metal detector that they optionally put people through. As I waited in line, the only person they subjected to the extra scan was one hot looking blonde lady wearing a flimsy blouse, cutoff shorts and flip-flops.

In the wake of Transport Security Administration staff forcing a "full pat-down" on a three-year-old child, Catholic priests have been clamouring [newstechnica.com] to work for the government department.

The TSA, which has apprehended only slightly less than one terrorist in its nine years of operation, welcomed the new recruits to the fold. "We need people with experience in dealing with young people," said TSA head John Pistole, "in telling people what to do and in making the innocent feel guilty. And the enthusiasm! They're not your typical bored minimum-wager, no way! Also, they have better uniforms."

Mr Pistole reiterated the patriotic duty that drives the TSA in their work. "Fondling little girls' genitals is vital to protecting America from TERRORISTS. Remember: if TSA staff can't finger your daughter, the TERRORISTS have won!" He then strangled a kitten for our photographer.

Cardinal Bernard Law returned to America from the Vatican especially for the opportunity to create government-funded child pornography with the new "naked" scanners. "It's top quality stuff, too. The tears, the pain — the things that make this sort of thing really worthwhile."

"They were nasty men," said three-year-old TSA molestee Mandy Simon. "But it clearly demonstrates the iron necessity of the holy Jihadic destruction of the West. Allahu akbar! Daddy? I done a boo-boo."

My employer has a lab in Haifa, and I know a number of folks who have traveled to Israel on business. They have also traveled to the US, post 9/11. They all state that the Israeli security folks are really detectives, who are very intelligent, ask misleading questions and evaluate the responses. All very "human / personal based." They all felt safe when entering the plane.

The US security seems to be base on technology. You have security folks, who are only capable of identifying a terrorist if the machine beeps.

This reminds me of how despite all the high tech satellite surveillance of Iraq, the wrong conclusions came out of the US intelligence agencies. Allen Dulles ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allen_Dulles [wikipedia.org] ) was much better at recognizing the higher value of "human intellegence" (HUMINT).

So what am I ranting about? I would rather be grilled a Inspector Columbo at a security check, than scanned by a machine operated by some doofus.

Train people to conduct good security, and have them stationed at the airports. Make it a well-paying career and people might actually consider it as a career who might otherwise have avoided it. We may have more airports, but we also have more people who can be trained for the job, or are already trained.

Exactly right. The excuse that Israel is smaller and has less to protect is bogus, considering that the US has 1/3 of a billion people, which means a larger pool of trainable people than Israel has.

The people who are so paranoid that they demand everyone on the plane they ride in be scoped and groped before they fly, those people need to stay home, because no one else around them is assaulted by the government looking for weapons.

The types of people who want to run your life, want you to be so terrified

Scale doesn't matter. There's no shortage of proven interrogation techniques that work, and they're very easy to learn. I learned the Reid Technique [wikipedia.org] in the span of about a month. Saying it's impossible to train people is a plain copout, and excuse making.

look him up. He has abused and manipulated his relationships with Homeland Security to try and make billions for him and his friends with the naked scanners. Part of the groping is to try and force people to use the scanners so they can sell more of them. Chertoff and Rapiscan Systems need to be indicted.

look him up. He has abused and manipulated his relationships with Homeland Security to try and make billions for him and his friends with the naked scanners. Part of the groping is to try and force people to use the scanners so they can sell more of them. Chertoff and Rapiscan Systems need to be indicted.

I imagine this will happen right after Bush & Cheney are sent to prison for their ties to Haliburton and other no-bid contract corporations. And *that* will happen right after Henry Kissinger is sent to prison for war crimes.

The TSA searches are causing greater loss of useable lifetime than terrorists ever could. Each year, about 800 million people have to arrive one hour earlier at the airport to wait in lines and now suffer increased humiliation. Human beings only live for 700,000 hours. The TSA is wasting over 1000 lifetimes each year.

If an employer requires you to travel as part of your job, and it can be argued that the TSA is taking nude photos and utilizing inappropriate touching during pat downs, what liability is an employer exposed to for making regular 'sexual assault' part of your job description?

Because the airline screens are Government and nolonger private, I thin there is a First Amendment argument here.

The pat downs obviously would violate the fourth Amendment there is no probably cause to suspect you of a crime just because you are in an airport and wish to board a plane. The procedure also takes in excess of 10min in some cases so even if there was cause it may exceed the bounds of a Terry stop; finally people have attempted to turn around and leave the airport rather than submit and been denied which makes everyone feel that we are not free to leave; which than becomes false imprisonment.

Now the knee jerk response is going to be "but you don't have to go to the airport and get on a plane" its not a right; and therefore you cannot evoke the fourth. What if I live in New York and want to assemble with others in California later that afternoon? I could do so but for the fact the government is not letting my on a privately owned aircraft, that I purchased a ticket to get onto from a private carrier. By demanding I submit to my fourth amendment rights being violated they are infringing on my first amendment rights.

The full body scans are silly because Al Qaeda has ALREADY [cbsnews.com] used suicide bombers with explosives in their BODY CAVITIES. These are not exposed by full-body scanners that stop at the skin surface.

From the linked article "Asieri had a pound of high explosives, plus a detonator inserted in his rectum." That was 2009.

Of course you have just presented yourself as a person who cares more about someone's party affiliation than the actual content of whatever they are saying. Did you even bother to read - never mind, I know the answer. Just keep voting for your party and hope that things will get better. They won't. What the hell is the point of giving someone a vote when they don't even understand or care what they're voting for?/rant

Did you just miss the story about the Oregon senator blocking COICA? I had to consult Wikipedia to find out that the guy was a democrat. Every time I've ever seen a story regarding specific politicians I don't recall seeing party affiliation. And Ron Paul is high profile enough that if you don't know his affiliation then you're not paying attention and not interested in these kinds of stories anyway.

I tend to find that Slashdot's readership is left-leaning, but you're really grasping at straws here and it's

"The COICA copyright bill may have sailed through committee, but that doesn't mean it's a done deal. Senator Ron Wyden of Oregon, calling it the 'wrong medicine' to block copyright violations, is threatening to put a hold on the bill, which would block its adoption through at least the end of the year."

... aaand the fact that he is, amongst other things, also a religious loon who wants to remove the separation of state and religion and that he wants the US government to establish an Official Religion (it would be one of those few very critical remaining functions his much-much-smaller government would perform) has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with it... its just all us lazy slouches here trying to avoid "responsibility!" Its a conspiracy of the hippies, I tell you!

Sorry, if you are making north of 200k and "have a harder time providing for our family", you ain't doing it right. Cell phones, every cable channel, the new lex in the 3 car garage. If you adjust for inflation that 20k is nice. I make less than half of what you make, and I am living high on the hog. I honestly don't know what you are doing wrong, but you are doing it.

I assume that you are intending this link to be proof that Ron Paul is calling for an Official Religion of the US Government. Too bad that you didn't actually read what you linked to, because it says nothing of the kind there.

What you linked to was a common-sense statement about how some people feel about being pushed so hard to be "tolerant" that they can no longer exercise their own religion because those who have none might be offended by it. He doesn't come close to calling for an "Official Religion",

He is a Republican who actually BELIEVES in smaller government, who has consistently acted on those grounds, and campaigns for it.

Really? Then why didn't he introduce a bill forbidding the molestation of passengers and exposure to harmful and ineffective scans? Or better yet, if he really believes in smaller governement he would introduce a bill eliminating the TSA all together since they are a wasteful ineffective agency that has done nothing to make anyone safer.

Instead he proposes a bill which says, in effect, "if you don't like how you are treated by the TSA you can spend a few hundred thousand dollars trying to sue the Federal Government. This is nothing more than political grandstanding and pretending to be "against big government".

No law of the United States shall be construed to confer any immunity for a Federal employee or agency or any individual or entity that receives Federal funds, who subjects an individual to any physical contact (including contact with any clothing the individual is wearing), x-rays, or millimetre waves, or aids in the creation of or views a representation of any part of a individual’s body covered by clothing as a condition for such individual to be in an airport or to fly in an aircraft. The preceding sentence shall apply even if the individual or the individual’s parent, guardian, or any other individual gives consent.

Since this bill explicitly forbids any kind of immunity for the TSA goons, if one of them grabs your crotch, you call a real cop, and file a criminal charge just like you would against anyone else who committed a sexual assault.

So what if a corporation dumps waste in the river, exposes workers to a toxic environment, over harvests the ocean or destroys entire species, abuses monopoly powers to destroy competition, or any number of negative externalities [wikipedia.org]?

Cutting corners and not getting caught (or getting caught but the penalty being less than the gain) can be very profitable. Sometimes the damage being done is hidden long enough that a corporation flourishes. It's not hard for permanent damage to be be done on either a personal o

Companies have the conscience, remorse and morals of those people who control them.Companies are not autonomous entities. To perpetuate such a preposterous idea is to absolve those who run companies of any responsibility for their decisions and actions.

You seem quite misinformed regarding Libertarians. Most libertarians do believe in government, regulations, police, fire departments etc. Their complaint regarding government is often that the wrong level is addressing an issue, that state or local levels should be handling a particular issue rather than the federal (national) level; that the causes of various problems vary from region to region and are better addressed at a more local level. They often believe in regulation to the extent that it creates a level playing field and ensures safe products and services. Their complaint regarding regulations is often targeted against overregulation where the goal is societal engineering (for example: more people should own houses rather than rent) or political grandstanding (violent video games for example). They believe law enforcement should prevent one person from harming another (smoking pot while driving ?), but if a person is engaging in some activity that harms no one else they should be left alone (smoking pot at home ?). They also believe that some things are best handled at the national level. For example national defense and interstate regulation and infrastructure. The typical libertarian doesn't seem very deluded.

Keep in mind that the folks you see on TV are not there because they represent the typical. They are usually there because they represent the most entertaining, or if you prefer the cynical then because they represent the stereotype the producer wishes to portray.

They say they're against regulation, but then they say they want some government interference.

Make up your mind already.

The grown-ups have already decided that more government intervention is better than less government intervention.

Uh...what? The "grown-ups" (who I assume you do not number yourself among) have decided that more government intervention is better? Are you nuts? The question is not whether or not we need to reduce the size of Federal Government... but what parts to cut.

They often believe in regulation to the extent that it creates a level playing field and ensures safe products and services. Their complaint regarding regulations is often targeted against overregulation where the goal is societal engineering (for example: more people should own houses rather than rent) or political grandstanding (violent video games for example).

They say they're against regulation, but then they say they want some government interference.

No, they are against overregulation. From a libertarian perspective desired regulation would be something like transparency in banking and finance. Undesired regulation and interference might be regulations engineering a greater level of home ownership rather than renting.

The grown-ups have already decided that more government intervention is better than less government intervention.

Really, how did that intervention to increase home ownership and decrease renting work out?

Perhaps you missed the whole "Socially Liberal" part, since you keep trying HARD to force libertarians into the tired grooves of either "neocon republican" or "limp wristed spend thrift liberal". Libertarians are not either.

The libertarian would be FOR government regulation for such things as equal rights. What they are against is regulations saying which kinds of house you can own, or what kind of shirt you can wear on the subway (or what kinds of games you can buy for your kids.)

It's simple-- Libertarian comes from "Liberty"-- for the most part, anything that increases the liberty of citizens is considered good; Biggotry is not a liberty that is good for the general citizen, because it de-facto implies obstructionism and lack of liberty to a portion of those citizens. Same with Gay marriage (concerning obstructionism being bad).

If anything, the Libertarian is more likely to suffer the bias AGAINST big business, BECAUSE big business tries to keep people down in general (to prevent competition). Your assertion that Libertarians would support racial biggotry is horribly unfounded, and serves only to highlight your own ignorance of that ideology.

But the Civil Rights legislation was as good an example of the hated social engineering as you will ever see. Not only were governments at the state and local level forced to treat blacks fairly and decently, but why, even private businesses could no longer discriminate. Surely telling citizens what they can or cannot do with their own restaurants, pubs, laundromats, taxis and so forth is tyranny, right?

Apparently I'm a Libertarian then. I assume fiscal responsibility is part of the package as well, right?

Yes. In fact, many people mistake us Libertarians for Republicans because we spend so much time harping on fiscal responsibility.

Of course, the truth is that we're socially liberal, sometimes extremely so. It's just that issues like rights for gay couples seem so obvious that there isn't much to debate, and complex issues like the national debt are much more fun to argue.

"Honestly, I'm not sure why this is such a big deal - it's as if we (African-Americans) think we have a God-given right to ride at the front of the bus. Yet in everyday life, we must give up certain liberties; when I'm driving on public roads, I don't have the right to freedom from unreasonable search and seizure by over-zealous law enforcement. But that's OK, because I voluntarily put myself on a bus, or on a public road."

The government doesn't give us rights. We have the rights inherently. Just because the government says driving on roads that I payed for isn't a right, doesn't mean their position is legally sound. Their unreasonable search and seizure of persons and property at airports is outright illegal under the Constitution. There are no ifs, ands or buts about it. The reason it continues is that nobody in power will prosecute them, and courts won't hear criminal cases brought by the general public.

So how long do you think before, TSA would require a body scan before boarding a bus or a train or a ship? You would still be fine with it, if you were informed in advance, right? One can still take the car or walk or swim, right?

You're welcome to take a bus, train, car or boat to your destination instead.

I've heard this argument over and over again, and it misses a very real factor of modern life: it is assumed by society that you will travel in such a way as to be expedient. I cannot say to my supervisor, "sure, I'll be glad to attend that important conference in Bejing, but it will take me six weeks to get there and another six to get back because I won't fly," and expect to still have a job. Electing to not fly by commercial airline to any destination that is outside of normal driving range, as evaluat

I just had this discussion with a friend earlier today. The millimeter wave scanners don't even USE x-ray radiation, and the backscatter uses about 1/100ththe radiation of a dental x-ray. I asked my friend if she was going to stop getting dental x-rays, she said no because they only do that once a year. can't really argue with that level of logic.

It's very effective but it's a pain in the ass compared to US Security.

Last time it took me a full 3 hours from entering the airport to arriving at the gate to depart. They x-rayed my bags, then hand-searched them, and asked me grilling and misleading questions before I even got to the ticket counter to check-in! Then it was a long wait to get through immigration. Then I got singled out for another x-ray line that _crawled_ along. There was probably a dozen of us in that line and it took 30 mins to get us all through. I think they make you wait on purpose to see if you get nervous etc.

Effective yes, but I'd hate to have to go through that everytime I want to fly.